Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 00:21:27 -0400 From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: GOThomas At 11:38 5/1/97 -0400, William Arnal wrote: >We only have two copies of Thomas, and one of them is fragmentary. >Given all the textual corruption and harmonization we KNOW to have >taken place among NT MSS, we should expect that the text of Thomas >as we have it is corrupt, and make some allowance for that. All the >more so in instances where the POxy doesn't agree with the Coptic MS >-- then we KNOW the text of one or the other or both is corrupt. > Of the options noted above, #1 is not literarily >distinguishable IN ANY WAY from #5 in the absence of a good MS >tradition. There is no way to distinguish one from the other in any >individual instance, and no reason, in any individual instance to >prefer one to the other. I would say that there is a reason to prefer #1 (Th's use of Lk, simpliciter) to #5 (later corruption of Th in the direction of Lk). In case #1, there is actually a text: the gospel of Luke. In case #5, I have to take on faith that the Lucanism was not present in Th all along. However, the proponent of #5 conveniently does not have a text. Perhaps #5 can appeal to analogy. I think that the stronger analogy is in the transmission of Thomas itself from the Greek fragments to the Coptic version, rather than appeals to the transmission of the synoptic textual tradition in wither Greek or Coptic. I'm currently looking in detail how the text of POxy 1, 654, and 655 is transmitted. I'm not finished, but it looks like the transmission is fairly good (for POxy 1) and not much at all corrupted by synoptic parallels. If this holds up, then case #5 is relatively less likely than case #1. >In such a case, then, the question could >only be decided on the basis of overal patterns in the text. Does >Thomas, in other words, show a general dependence on GLuke across >his material, and especially in those instances in which he >parallels Luke? If the answer is, generally speaking, "no," then >individual instances of Lukan redaction are probably textual >corruptions; if the answer is "yes," then individual instances of >Lukan redaction in Thomas are probably NOT textual corruptions. It's possible that the textual corruptions could have moved the text of Thomas in the other direction, away from the synoptics. In other words, textual corruptions could just as well obscure the overall patter of dependence. One must first (which is what I am currently doing) determine first the tendencies of Thomasine tradition, by painstakingly examining the transmission from Greek to Coptic in the texts of Thomas we actually do have before speculating on the Greek texts of Thomas we don't have. My own preliminary impression is that harmonizations to Luke is simply not as common as some make it out to be. Harmonizations to Matthew, however, is a different issue and need to be considered. >> Sure, it's possible that Cases 2, 4, and 5 are the explanation rather >> than Case 1, but each of those is not particular compelling. Given >> that there are about 45-60 sayings in Thomas that are close to the >> synoptic tradition, the odds are that for one of them, Case 1 is the >> explanation. > >But this one case doesn't decide the matter, does it? In fact, if >there is just ONE case of case #1, it's probably REALLY case #5. >Anyway, by this kind of reasoning you can say also that the odds are >that for one of them case #2 applies. So what? If either #1 (Thomas' use of Luke) or #2 (Luke's use of Thomas) applies, then independence is eliminated as an option. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35